A real two-bladed sword!

[Drifter Bob]

Speaking of Asian stuff....I always imagined it using techniques similar to those used when wielding the Kwan Do/Guan Dao. One end is used for the majority of the poking and slashing, while the other end is used for stabbing and the like. Basically, the user will favor one end over the other and the hand will grasp it with the thumbs both facing forward.

A picture: http://www.wahlumdenver.com/images/Weapons/kwan do.JPG

Like I say, if you ever buy one of those things and use it in any way, please arrange to have the event video taped for the darwin awards.


DB

 

[takyris]

I've used the double spear extensively in Kenpo, and it's a wonderful weapon once you get good with it. I've also made myself bleed even just using the non-sharp training weapons. At one point, I held my hand wrong on a spin and slashed myself across the ribs with one end (I should have held it out farther so the near edge didn't cut me) -- just a scratch, but it was just a scratch that came through the heavy-duty grappling-weight gi top I was wearing at the time. (I'm better with it now.)

So, from that viewpoint, I can say that I've trained with double weapons. And this is, as someone else said, not a two-handed weapon. Based on the numbers on the site, this weapon isn't big enough to be even remotely useful as a double weapon. Sizewise, using this with two hands would be like trying to use both hands while wielding a ruler with a long pair of scissors taped to each end. (11" blades, 34" overall, so 11" blade, 12" grip, 11" blade.) I don't really see much use for this, to be honest. It's cute, but I wouldn't want to use one as a one-handed weapon. It's like a short sword with one sharp edge, only you might slash your own arm when trying to swing it or block.

However, if this were bumped up in size to about double it's existing size, I could see it potentially having some use as a two-handed weapon. The fact that it's sharp only on one side of each blade gives you the ability to wield it with the dull edges toward you, so that you aren't as likely to slash your own waist with blade X when you swing blade Y at your enemy's throat. Used that way, it would essentially be a double spear with longer spearpoints and a shorter gripping area -- this would make some techniques impossible or much less useful, but it also adds more cutting surface, which would be good.

Drifter Bob, regardless of its length, I completely agree that no blade like this ever saw mass production as a practical weapon. However, I'd quibble on one point: I think (and am open to discussion about the thought) that whether a weapon saw mass production was not a question of whether it could become useful but the ratio of difficulty in training to utility in combat. It's possible that a properly made full-size double sword is, in the hands of a master, a better weapon than a rapier or katana -- but the relative difficulty in training with such a weapon means that it is certainly not worth it to try to teach the double-sword to 1,000 infantry men.

The difference between your viewpoint and mine is that I believe that it's certainly possible for someone to have trained for a long time and gotten good with such a weapon (again, if properly made and looking very little like the illustration in the PHB), but simple efficiency dictated that such a weapon would never become popular, since the same person would have reached that level with an easier weapon in a shorter period of time.

 

[Drifter Bob]

The difference between your viewpoint and mine is that I believe that it's certainly possible for someone to have trained for a long time and gotten good with such a weapon (again, if properly made and looking very little like the illustration in the PHB), but simple efficiency dictated that such a weapon would never become popular, since the same person would have reached that level with an easier weapon in a shorter period of time.

Theoreticaly, you could strap a goldfish bowl on your head (with or without a goldfish in it) and use that as a lethal weapon with sufficient training. Problem is, against an equally well trained and / or expeirenced fighter with a halfway decent appropriate weapon, you would lose. Real life is different from Kung Fu movies, not all weapons are equal.

And contrary to your opinion, basically every type of hand weapon capable of killing or injuring people has been tried already at one time or another in the aeons of human strife. Those that worked became more or less well known at least for a while, those which did not fell by the wayside.

As for the specific issue of two-ended weapons ala two bladed sword and axe, dire flail etc., they are patently stupid weapons unusable in any real conflict. Of course, many spears and pole-arms might have a secondary offensive capability on the other end in the form of a sharpened butt, a conuterbalancing weight, or even a small spear blade (very rarely) but the ratio of haft to weapon is rather more significant.


Like I said, this is a classic for the darwin awards. The people who made it, (just as the people who make 90% of the "ninja" and "samurai" weapons available on the internet and Home Shopping Network) should be shot.


DB

 

[rbingham2000]

I've used the double spear extensively in Kenpo, and it's a wonderful weapon once you get good with it. I've also made myself bleed even just using the non-sharp training weapons. At one point, I held my hand wrong on a spin and slashed myself across the ribs with one end (I should have held it out farther so the near edge didn't cut me) -- just a scratch, but it was just a scratch that came through the heavy-duty grappling-weight gi top I was wearing at the time. (I'm better with it now.)

So, from that viewpoint, I can say that I've trained with double weapons. And this is, as someone else said, not a two-handed weapon. Based on the numbers on the site, this weapon isn't big enough to be even remotely useful as a double weapon. Sizewise, using this with two hands would be like trying to use both hands while wielding a ruler with a long pair of scissors taped to each end. (11" blades, 34" overall, so 11" blade, 12" grip, 11" blade.) I don't really see much use for this, to be honest. It's cute, but I wouldn't want to use one as a one-handed weapon. It's like a short sword with one sharp edge, only you might slash your own arm when trying to swing it or block.

However, if this were bumped up in size to about double it's existing size, I could see it potentially having some use as a two-handed weapon. The fact that it's sharp only on one side of each blade gives you the ability to wield it with the dull edges toward you, so that you aren't as likely to slash your own waist with blade X when you swing blade Y at your enemy's throat. Used that way, it would essentially be a double spear with longer spearpoints and a shorter gripping area -- this would make some techniques impossible or much less useful, but it also adds more cutting surface, which would be good.

Drifter Bob, regardless of its length, I completely agree that no blade like this ever saw mass production as a practical weapon. However, I'd quibble on one point: I think (and am open to discussion about the thought) that whether a weapon saw mass production was not a question of whether it could become useful but the ratio of difficulty in training to utility in combat. It's possible that a properly made full-size double sword is, in the hands of a master, a better weapon than a rapier or katana -- but the relative difficulty in training with such a weapon means that it is certainly not worth it to try to teach the double-sword to 1,000 infantry men.

The difference between your viewpoint and mine is that I believe that it's certainly possible for someone to have trained for a long time and gotten good with such a weapon (again, if properly made and looking very little like the illustration in the PHB), but simple efficiency dictated that such a weapon would never become popular, since the same person would have reached that level with an easier weapon in a shorter period of time.

I definitely agree with the only-one-side-sharpened thing. Less chance of slicing yourself in half when you attack an opponent, and the feint-and-attack tactic I talked about in an earlier post would still be viable, since the edges of both blades would be pointed toward the opponent and not you.

As for where you would find such a weapon in a D&D world...it would mainly be seen in the gladiator pits and in the hands of certain duelists or masters of exotic and deadly fighting arts. Like most exotic weapons, a regular warrior could go his whole career without encountering one in action or having to face someone that wields one, but those that do aren't likely to forget.

 

[Drifter Bob]

more girls for the rest of us

... a regular warrior could go his whole career without encountering one in action or having to face someone that wields one, but those that do aren't likely to forget.

You are right, they would never forget it, it would be one of the most laugh out loud hilarious moments in their life...

People, try to get a grip. This thing is the product of a sad, weak geek mind, made reality by people who wish to prey upon geeks and get rich off of their geekish stupidity, while in the process posing a serious threat of injuring them if they even play around with one.

Hmmm.... so why am I against this?

DB

 

[takyris]

Theoreticaly, you could strap a goldfish bowl on your head (with or without a goldfish in it) and use that as a lethal weapon with sufficient training. Problem is, against an equally well trained and / or expeirenced fighter with a halfway decent appropriate weapon, you would lose. Real life is different from Kung Fu movies, not all weapons are equal.

Bob, a couple of points:

1) "Not all weapons are equal" is effectively what I was saying -- only I said it as "efficiency as a ratio of offensive power to training difficulty". I know you'd like to be the only person with this opinion, because it would let you be righteous and alone, but really, I'm not actually disagreeing with you on the fundamental "this weapon is harder to learn, and thus would not be as popular" principle.

2) I believe that you're being somewhat snarky and somewhat rude, and it's interfering with a good conversation, with many good points -- some of them yours.

And contrary to your opinion, basically every type of hand weapon capable of killing or injuring people has been tried already at one time or another in the aeons of human strife.

Please quote the text in which I said otherwise. I believe (from just scrolling down and looking at my post) that I said "mass production". So as much as you love to begin your sentences with "contrary to your opinion" when being rudely righteous to someone... that isn't actually contrary to my opinion. I never said they weren't tried. I said they never saw mass production. You know... because, exactly like you said, someone made a few, tried them out, went "Hm, this is not better than the sword I already had," and gave up.

Again, you're being rude, and it's making it difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.

As for the specific issue of two-ended weapons ala two bladed sword and axe, dire flail etc., they are patently stupid weapons unusable in any real conflict.

Models built to scale with the illustrations in the PHB? Yes. However, since I use a double weapon, I'm not convinced that other double weapons are impossible to use effectively. They might be a step or two above that goldfish bowl. It'd be a question of getting the right design, which would likely bear about as much resemblence to the PHB illustrations as an actual warhammer bears to the warhammer pictured in the PHB.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Bob, a couple of points:

I'm sorry, I would be less rude if it was a less ridiculous premise.

1) "Not all weapons are equal" is effectively what I was saying -- only I said it as "efficiency as a ratio of offensive power to training difficulty".

And my point is, an expert with an inferior unwieldy weapon would lose against an expert with a superior (i.e. 'normal') weapon, just as would happen with two less trained opponents. It is not just a matter of one being "harder to learn to use" than another. Against a halfway trained fighter, NOBODY with one of those things is going to win.

However, since I use a double weapon, I'm not convinced that other double weapons are impossible to use effectively. They might be a step or two above that goldfish bowl. It'd be a question of getting the right design, which would likely bear about as much resemblence to the PHB illustrations as an actual warhammer bears to the warhammer pictured in the PHB.

The weapon depicted in that link is not a double weapon, it's fanciful martial arts version of a rather typical pole-arm, with a primary striking blade on one end and a rather fancifcl butt-spike on the other. Not only does it have a MUCH bigger haft to blade ratio than any of the double weapons in the PHB, it also has a primary and a secondary fighting point, unlike say a double sword.


I'm sorry if I seem rude but everybody has their limits. As someone with a genuine interest in spathlogy this whole discussion is just an exorcise in futility. I'll leave it with the darwin awards suggestion and call it a day.


Looks like the storm missed us here anyway.


DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

It's possible that a properly made full-size double sword is, in the hands of a master, a better weapon than a rapier or katana --

No, it is not.


DB

 

[takyris]

And my point is, an expert with an inferior unwieldy weapon would lose against an expert with a superior (i.e. 'normal') weapon, just as would happen with two less trained opponents.

Okay, let's take two masters. They've each trained since 10 years of age, and they're each 30 now. One of them has spent 20 years learning a sword (of some normal and popular kind), while the other has spent 20 years learning a weird weapon. In both cases, the guys are training and fighting matches against people with normal swords, because, well, normal swords are what are most common.

When that showdown arrives, the sword expert has a ton of experience and an inherently easier-to-use weapon. The unwieldy-weapon expert has a weapon that is going to throw the sword expert for a loop. At least some of his practical ideas and take-as-given reflexes are going to be wrong.

That's the advantage of weird weapons -- they're weird. If you're a sword guy who's only ever fought sword guys, the guy with the kusarikama is gonna throw you for a loop*, because his weapon does a bunch of stuff you're not used to. If the guy with the weird weapon has trained against your weapon for years, but you haven't trained against his weapon for years, then that difference could be enough to offset the inherent superiority of the weird weapon.

That, I believe, is why someone would try to use something like that in real life (well, beyond "It looks cool" or "I want to get that Darwin award"). If we're talking about a genuinely experienced person, the spoiler factor of an abnormal weapon is going to be a factor when fighting an opponent who has only trained against normal weapons.

* I trained a bunch with a kusarikama, and I could comfortably deal with just about any weapon -- except a sword. Every attack response session where I had the kk and my opponent had any kind of sword ended with "And then Tacky gets eviscerated," except for the rare occasions when I got him first because of reach or got real lucky and tangled his sword up. If I trained for 20 years, maybe I could tangle the sword up more often. But if I had 20 years and knew that there were going to be life-threatening situations, I'd probably spend 19 and a half of those years getting a sword... because, really, not fun.

It is not just a matter of one being "harder to learn to use" than another. Against a halfway trained fighter, NOBODY with one of those things is going to win.

I disagree. But mileage may vary. Let's find a swordsman and a double-trident master, both with 20 years of experience with their weapons, both of them training against swords (since swords are the default), and see how they do. Or, since you feel so strongly about it, let's do your halfway method, and take a 20-year double-trident wielder and put him against a 10-year swordsman, assuming that both of them have trained against normal standard weapons... ie, swords.

The weapon depicted in that link is not a double weapon, it's fanciful martial arts version of a rather typical pole-arm, with a primary striking blade on one end and a rather fancifcl butt-spike on the other.

Sorry, what link? I didn't post a link, so I don't know who you're referring to. You're not talking about the "double sword" that got this all started, by that description...

I'm sorry if I seem rude but everybody has their limits.

"Seem" is sort of a false subjective here. You're being rude. You know you're being rude. You're defending your rudeness because you think that this topic is so stupid that it is justifiable for you to be rude.

And based on that actual weapon that started this, I don't disagree that... uh... it's a lousy weapon. It's either a lousy one-handed weapon or a lousy two-handed weapon, but it's a lousy weapon either way.

As someone with a genuine interest in spathlogy this whole discussion is just an exorcise in futility. I'll leave it with the darwin awards suggestion and call it a day.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to remove demons from the idea of futility. I can understand how that would be difficult. Well, I can't, really, but exorcise away.

And you and I are in radically different places, so there's bound to be some friction. My next belt test (in the far future when I can practice regularly again) involves doing a set of techniques with anything the teachers throw my way. So I've had to learn, on the fly, to do a given combination of strikes, locks, and traps with empty hands, and then a stick, and then a knife, and then two sticks, and then a stick and a knife, and then a staff, and then a hula hoop, and then a dictionary, and then a jumprope, and then a punching mitt (yes, really, all of those)... because this belt is all about using whatever we have on hand and adapting techniques to any kind of tool. The punching mitt is, frankly, pretty lame as weapons go, but I'd still take it over my empty hands if somebody comes at me with a knife.

So, from the perspective of a purist, I can see how an "all weapons are potentially useable" argument is going to raise hackles. I'm certainly not suggesting that I'd rather have a punching mitt (or the silly wall-hanger that started this thread) than a sword if someone came and made a death match challenge right now.

Looks like the storm missed us here anyway.

Glad to hear it!


DB[/QUOTE]

 

[Incenjucar]

Just the sheer loss of range of motion ruins that thing. If you're hands are constantly in one spot, you can't shift leverage for anything, you can't use the blades on an opponent who's directly in front of you without going at a serious angle, and if someone goes after your wrists, you'll lose BOTH of them.

Not to mention that, unlike staff-based weapons, you can't spin the bugger in to a new position without risking slicing yourself.